And I did a lot of bench work. I think I must have wound and tested 12 pairs of toroids on "Orbette 2.0".

At least the lads had stumbled upon an interesting effect, what I call "core effect", and came up with a pulse motor using it. I was surprised at how such a relatively weak effect could result in a pulse motor that worked so well, in terms of acceleration and torque.

Too bad there didn't turn out to be anything interesting or significant like that, in Ainslie's mashup. In her case the psychological factors are what amazes.

poynt99 you've done some really good investigative work on this.  It is terribly unfortunate that Ms. Ainslie elects to dismiss your fine work and cast dispersions on you.

As you probably know Ms. Ainslie continues to insist against all verifiable evidence that she has demonstrated "Unity Barrier" violations, IE more energy out than in.  She continues to make declarations that directly contradict her own demonstrations and other well-established facts.  Ms. Ainslie insists that whatever circuit and whatever operating conditions were actually the basis of the magazine article that they were successfully replicated, "accredited", and endorsed by qualified professionals acting on behalf of their employers.  Ms. Ainslie has failed to produce any statement from any such third party expert or their employer.  Ms. Ainslie would do her claims a world of good were she to actually produce such an endorsement.

Ms. Ainslie invokes Greg East's experiments as confirmation of her own.  There are many flaws with that assertion, the first of which is that Mr. East reports outputs in the area of 125% of input whereas Ms. Ainslie claims outputs of 1600% of input and more.  Disparities of these magnitudes are not comparable.  Further, Ms. Ainslie's own demonstrations have shown that she has relied on faulty measurements that yielded false impressions of ~10X or more gains where in actuality she and her collaborators demonstrated the circuits as were only ~20% efficient. 

Ms. Ainslie now charges that the sound protocols that you suggested, and that she accepted were "FAR from satisfactory".  Ms. Ainslie does not elaborate on what it is that she finds lacking in those methods, or why she chose to use protocols she believes to be unsatisfactory in her demonstrations, or why she agreed with the measurement results that those methods produced as can be seen in the demonstration video. 

Finally, in Ms. Ainslie's most recent posting she forcefully asserts: 

"The current flow measured directly at the negative terminal of the battery shows NO discharge during the 'OFF' period." 

That is incorrect.  The August 11 demonstration video shows battery current draw as measured reliably at the battery during the 'OFF' period.  Any who care to take the time can review the video of the August 11 demonstration and observe the fact that the battery discharges during both the 'ON' and 'OFF' periods of the Q1 MOSFET.  This is most readily observed during measurements reliably taken at the batteries themselves, which is a set-up that you skillfully suggested, and Ms. Ainslie and her collaborators accepted.

If your test protocols or measurements produce results that Ainslie doesn't like, then they are wrong, QED. Ainslie will never tell you how or why, nor will she produce any kind of experimental demonstration of why they are wrong. Simply disagreeing with Ainslie is enough to make you "wrong". And when the evidence that she is indeed wrong, utterly and completely, becomes overwhelming, she simply brushes the issue under the rug. Like the issue of the 555 timer chip, manufactured in 2007, that is in the box she claims has been untouched since 2003.

What is more curious, and  laughable, about Ainslie is that things that are right one day, become wrong the next, as you have pointed out. Ainslie and .99 and SWeir agreed beforehand on what was to be tested and how, and what the criteria would be for passing or failing the test of claims. These procedures and constraints were 'right', discussed, accepted and approved .... until they proved Ainslie to be wrong, and then they became "FAR from satisfactory" in Ainslie's fantasy. Yet she cannot explain why or suggest better, alternative procedures and criteria. She continues to talk about "battery run down testing" but has never actually performed this kind of test in spite of opportunity after opportunity and promise after promise. Yet those who HAVE performed such tests, using precise replications of her _claimed_ circuit and her _claimed_ waveforms, have uniformly found that there is no gain in battery performance; IOW that the batteries are run down at normal rates by the Ainslie circuits, just as measurements of current draw would predict.

Ainslie repeatedly chatters about these replications and confirmations by engineers from various companies, a decade ago, without any documentation of any kind. Not an email, not a graph or receipt, nothing has EVER been offered as evidence in support of Ainslie's claims in this regard. Yet she continues to make them. But we have all seen how she distorts and misrepresents statements made by others, and she can't even provide an accurate and coherent account of events that occurred three or four months ago, much less ten or twelve years ago. Without checkable, independent outside evidence, one cannot take _anything_ that Ainslie says at face value. The story of the various schematics is just one such story. Nobody really knows, to this day, what _actual_ circuit was used for any of Ainslie's reported "experiments". Only the visual record of the demonstrations, which provide photographic evidence of the actual apparatus, can be trusted.

Ainslie also egregiously misrepresents my work and my findings. For example, she whines that I haven't reproduced certain waveforms. However, I have indeed reproduced every waveform Ainslie and her teams have ever presented, and I've explained how. Ainslie has even mistaken a screen image of waveforms from my work, taken on a borrowed Tek scope, for one of her own! I've demonstrated several different ways that the bogus Figure 3 scopeshot could have been obtained. Ainslie now is representing that they were able to reproduce the Figure 3 data during their demonstration. What she forgets to mention is that their "reproduction" was accomplished by hooking their oscilloscope up incorrectly, differently from the locations given on the schematic. So what? She seems to think that repeating this vast error somehow legitimizes the shot! On the contrary, it demonstrates willfull fabrication of data, because the Figure 3 is known to be bogus, yet appears in the manuscripts anyway and is key to the conclusions drawn about the claims made.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8-wy8w9MWJY

At least one completely bogus claim has been removed from "current" edits of Ainslie's daft manuscripts. But the internet never forgets -- see the image below.

Quote from: TinselKoala on January 11, 2014, 01:39:47 AM
If your test protocols or measurements produce results that Ainslie doesn't like, then they are wrong, QED. ...

Years ago there was a scientist whose comments I admired who had a tag line something like:  "patience, persistence, truth".  I think that is a very wise approach.  I try as I can to emulate his philosophy by focusing on the data.  In terms of dealing with Ms. Ainslie I am interested in any data she presents as it relates to her extraordinary claims.